Occupy London Statement on Today’s March

As we write this, several hundred protesters are being kettled by police in the vicinity of Parliament Square. We have received reports of arrests, which observers from GBC Legal are investigating.

This afternoon, OccupyLSX convened a rally outside St Paul’s Cathedral. Those speaking included Caroline Lucas MP, Bruce Kent and Josie Long. Once the speakers had concluded, a call was made for those attending to march to Trafalgar Square, the end point of the 2011 Jarrow March, to show solidarity with those there. In the event, this turned out not to be possible.

Our march was escorted by police, who led those assembled not in the direction of Trafalgar Square, but towards Whitehall. Given that police were onsite at St Paul’s on Saturday morning to warn us that any attempt to march in the direction of Whitehall (which was not our intention in any case) would be blocked, this is rather puzzling.

We understand that police are containing protesters under the terms of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA). Section 132 of the Act states that any demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament require authorisation, which must be applied for a minimum of seven days before the planned action.

OccupyLSX have learned tonight that authorisation for a demonstration in Parliament Square was applied for and granted well before that 7-day time limit. We understand that veteran activist Chris Coverdale is in possession of two separate authorisations for protest, in the names of Democracy Village and Make Wars History. These two documents – and only one would be required – explicitly state that permission for a demonstration of “no more than 15,000 people” has been granted by police, under the terms of the Act. What is happening in Parliament Square is not, therefore, an “unlawful protest” under the terms of SOCPA.

This afternoon, Chris Coverdale attempted to join the demonstration at Whitehall, with his authorisations (which he has in writing) in hand. He was prevented from joining the others assembled, even though police had the opportunity to see both of his authorisation documents at first hand. Occupy London understand that Mr Coverdale will be applying for a judicial review of police action on Monday.

In the meantime, we advise anyone arrested today to ensure that police are made aware that they are taking part in an authorised demonstration under SOCPA rules.

Should you witness an arrest or want support, the GBC Legal hotline is 07946 541 511. In the event of arrest, we recommend you do not rely on the duty solicitor but call one of the following:

Bindmans: 020 7833 4433
HJA: 07659 111 192
ITN: 020 8522 7707

Update – 8pm

The kettle has now been dispersed. We understand that there have been 9 arrests, at least one on SOCPA grounds.

Lets face it. You were lead buy the nose to the one place where they could play the trump card. Bad organisation. They won this round. Make sure you don’t make the same mistake for the student march. Assign marshals along the route to guide. don’t rely on the police. They are not acting in your interest. If they want you to take a different route. Stop until you are allowed to proceed. Make sure also every one has a route guide to make sure marshal “imposters” don’t re-route. Basic stuff really.

On the contrary I would say the Police were led a Merry Dance! At least from where I was standing. Indeed a lot of the Police seemed bemused by the antics of their colleagues! I found the whole affair hilarious. Indeed by my estimation a 10:1 ratio of Police to Protester: totally failed to prevent our stated goal! You did read the article?

“Chris Coverdale is in possession of two separate authorisations for protest, in the names of Democracy Village and Make Wars History”

You have just stated right there why a protest by OccupyLSX would NOT be lawful, even with such authorisation documents. If you are Democracy Village, or Make Wars History, then yes, you could protest outside Parliament. However you are not. You are OccupyLSX. Therefore you, OccupyLSX, do not have permission to protest. Some other groups have, but not you. What you are trying to claim is that because another group has authorisation, that then authorises any other group in the country to go and protest outside Parliament if it wishes. No. Democracy Village and Make Wars History can protest because they have gievn notice to ‘the Commissioner’ that satisfies the conditions of section 133. OccupyLSX, however, has not issued such a notice, or has been given authorisation to do anything.

The OLSX supporters are from all walks of life some are ex squaddies some are students and some are former students that cannot get work, so i think there is a right to participate in a protest for their cause.

Emm a lot of protests going on, for many causes. Might that be a result of the system we have not working? Ohh guess what OLSX is about!

Dont you think the system might fight to keep the power they have?

If you are truley happy with the way things are then what does that say about you.

Where is your counter legal argument? I’m not interested in emotional opinions. I’m interested in what the law says, as OccupyLSX stated they believed they had legal authorisation to protest outside Parliament. I don’t believe that they do. If you deduce their logic, they are stating that once one group gets authorisation, every group then has authorisation. This is not correct, hence why Democracy Village needed its own authorisation and Make Wars History needed another. If you represent the 99%, then why not set up a political party? You should in theory win with 99% of the votes.

I have heard of the saying, but hardly see it as a feesible legal argument in court. OccupyLSX claimed to have legal authorisation. They are the ones who stated that they are within the law and are using this as a reason against Police tactics. I’m merely stating, after OLSX brought up the legalities of actions, that legally they could be incorrect.

From the perspective of Chris himself, then it appears an issue. Whitehall is within the ‘designated area’ that requires authorisation, which he had, and so him not being allowed to demonstrate does seem problematic. I imagine the argument would be that whilst he was authorised, he was trying to join an unauthorised protest, which the police were trying to prevent. However, in terms of OLSX trying to claim that Chris having the authorisation personally suddenly meant the whole OLSX march was therefore lawful is a fallacy.

I am astounded that OccupyLSX had not already sorted this permission thing out in advance. After all they were clearly promoting the Guy Falwkes demo on this website for days & from what I read it seemed as if those guest (leftist) speakers were also taking part ???

Surely this puts the participants in a difficult position if they face arrest having joined what they believed to be an organised Occupy function ? There could be people out there who cannot afford to be arrested, let’s say for example someone left their kids with child minders to come to the demo & then never got home because they were in custody. Result – kids in care because parents failing to maintain proper supervision !!
It really is important that people attending these “functions” can do so lawfully & not just be led into criminality by a ringleaders who wish for confrontation. Perhaps the movement should have a special sub-group to explore the legality of each & every “function” before they advertise it ?

Indeed Roger. All OLSX had to do was apply for permission and avoid all of this. I do not blame the participants (who probably innocently believed everything was above board) but the organisers who appear to have not even given the legality of the march a thought.

Hey fake human, that’s great! The more you and your friends choose to ignore me, the more you prove to the rest of the world, that you represent nothing, and are totally irrelevant. If that’s what you want, great, cuz that’s exactly what you deserve!

In fact, fake human, if you and your friends choose to ignore comments from people that dare to disagree with you, then you prove what a sad, undemoratic organisation you really are! So, just for once, try connecting with real people, and not the nasty anarchists who wish to destroy everything, and have us all living in caves. Oh, and guess what? When that happens, there will still be a ruling elite, e.g. North Korea!

Dave, much respect! I know it’s obvious that I don’t believe in your cause. I would welcome the opportunity to explain why, but the abusive reponse that I recieve to my postings, tell me all I need to know!

Hey, hopeless of the planet, once again, you are trying to impose your views on others! Not a problem, because eventually the real people of this world will understand how shallow and insincere you really are!

Jock Strap, you say you are happy to explain why you dislike this movement, but you haven’t because of the abusive response you have received. Surely that doesn’t have to stop you? It is an open forum, you can post your reasons without being invited. However, I am inviting you to do that right now. When you do, I will be happy to reflect on your comments, and give a considered, and respectful, reply to your reasons. That means we are in debate. I shall endeavor to be respectful to you, and your opinions, and I ask only that you agree to debate in a respectful manner too. So, do you want to debate?

Hey, ‘human of the planet’, You’ve just proved to all the sensible people of the world that you are an anarchist. No doubt, you seek violent confrontation, and to discredit the genuine, honourable people on here, who, although I disagree with, I respect their peaceful intentions.

Consider the lives of those that were directly affected by the carnarge on the M5 last night.
Consider the families of the deceased.
Consider those that were seriously injured.
I know this will be hard for some of you, but consider what those magnificent members of our emergency services, bless them all, were subjected to. Now, tell me what your utopian world would have done differently?

@ brobof, I am in no way trying to convert this one, that needs to be done by someone much greater than I, although I think even Jesus would have trouble with this one !
I am merely see it as my mission to be a distraction for him so the sensible debaters in here who want to get on with debating instead of berating, which seems to be his goal in here, and probably in life no doubt.
As for ‘wide shut’ I have been considering getting that one in myself but you have stolen my thunder, not getting ‘greedy’ are we ? 🙂

I’m actually a bit puzzled about this report. I was there today, with probably between 1500-2000 others (rough guess) and the march went along the edge of Trafalgar Square and came to a dead stop when met with a line of cops with black vans blocking Whitehall so that no-one could get to Parliament.

Not sure what happened after that, but I had originally believed that we were going to Parliament and the publicity poster actually advertised the march as going to parliament. If something different was announced at the start then I did not hear it. Mind you where i was the acoustics were so bad it was difficult to hear much at the rally.

We effectively stopped at Trafalgar square, or rather on the round around it (which I guess is considered part of it), and were prevented from going further. After that a lot of people dispersed but I’m guessing some found another way to get close to parliament and then were kettled.

Of course the legalistic objections from those above about who could rally near parllament are pretty superfluous as apparently permission was given for up to 15,000 people to demonstrate. If whatever group got permission is part of LSX and have the same aims, then frankly the cops are not able to distinguish which demonstrators fit in with LSX and which fit the other formally different grouping that has permission.

Unless you think we should have a political police force that is able to intervene in political life and tell people which campaigns they can be involved with to the exclusion of others. There is a little thing called freedom of association, the cops have no power to tell you who to associate with and who not if you are not engaging in any criminal activity by doing so. If someone from one grouping has permission for up to 15,000 people, and that person tells the cops “these are my people” (much less than 15,000), the cops will find it very difficult to say “no they are not” and legally kettle them.

The legal argument is not superflous. OLSX are claiming the police action was wrong in light of having ‘permission’ to demonstrate. I am saying that OLSX are probably wrong here and so the police action was more justified than they give credit for. You have said youself that the march was advertised as going to Parliament. What group advertised this? Assuming it was OLSX, the police would clearly see OLSX have organised a march to Parliament, and will know there has been no authorisation for this. Equally, this webpage has advertised the march, again adding weight to the fact that OLSX has organised the march without prior authorisation as needed by section 134. Thus the police know the march contains non-authorised persons. Indeed there may be people who are wishing to demonstrate and are part of the authorised groups, Democracy Village and Make Wars History. The onus is on them to prove they are not demonstrating with the non-authorised groups (marching with a non-authorised group is therefore going strongly against them). I appreciate the sentiments of the different groups may be similar, yet in this case DV and MWH have authorisation, and OLSX does not. If OLSX had been clever it could have used DV or MWH’s permission to demonstrate under their banners and so be able to demonstrate around Parliament. Your logic is that because Democracy Village as applied and got permission for 15,000, that then means any person in the UK can go and demonstrate any cause, so long as no more than 15,000 are present. If this is the case, why does Make Wars History need its own authorisation? Why couldn’t it just tag along with DV and be part of the potential 15,000? The answer is that each group needs its own authorisation. In future, just get the authorisation for OLSX and avoid these issues!

If the Labour Party wishes to hold a protest, then they have permission for however many people to be there on that protest (member and non member). They have authorisation from the Commissioner for the protest. A ‘non-authorised person’, as I put it, is someone who is taking part in a march that has NOT been authorised. OLSX have clearly organised a march without permission, therefore anyone on the march are not authorised to demonstrate in Parliament Sqaure. Thus the difference between the Labour protest and the OLSX one is that the former has permission, and the latter does not. You may then say ‘well why couldn’t all the OLSX people just claim to be Labour and are on the Labour march?’ The answer is that the police aren’t idiots and clearly know what you’re trying to do. Again, the simple solution here is to get permission in future. It may seem all a bit technical, but surely you must understand my point from a law perspective. It’s like me reserving 10 people on a guest list to a night club that requires you to be on the guest list to get in. Then you turn up, with 8 friends, asking to get in under the name Redscribe. Yes the club as the capacity to hold you (it has allowed me in on my own, with 9 other potential guests under my name), but you have not played by the rules and reserved a place. Therefore I accept your argument about capacity, yet the rules require you to get authorisation before you can protest at Parliament. If you don;t have it, then you will get turned away.

“You may then say ‘well why couldn’t all the OLSX people just claim to be Labour and are on the Labour march?”

Except that is not the scenario. What happens if the leader of the Labour Party approaches the police with his permission sheet and says – “these people are with our march.” And the police say “no, you can’t have these people on your march” – they have the wrong banner/leaflets/whatever.

Because that is what happened. The person with the permission approached to police to let these people through to his authorised event, and he was told ‘no way’.

Sounds like an unlawful act from the police to me.

Freedom of association is guaranteed by article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Telling people which legal event they are permitted to be part of is an obvious violation of that.

As I have commented to Brenda below, there are conditions attached to authorisations. Being authorised to have an encampment does not also authorise you to have a march with 2000 people go through Parliament Square.

Brenda – I have a law degree and currently am studying a legal Masters. I appreciate the possibility that you may be a soliticitor in this area, or indeed a barrister, in which case I would take your legal opinion over my own. I am simply stating my legal interpretation of the situation.

Here is section 132 for our reference:
“132 Demonstrating without authorisation in designated area

(1)Any person who—
(a)organises a demonstration in a public place in the designated area, or
(b)takes part in a demonstration in a public place in the designated area, or
(c)carries on a demonstration by himself in a public place in the designated area,

is guilty of an offence if, when the demonstration starts, authorisation for the demonstration has not been given under section 134(2)”

If we read further into the act, the Commissioner can give conditions for the authorisation, which include location, noise and numbers. Therefore a March through the designated area is matrially different to the setting up of a camp, as is Democracy Village. As we are dealing with different activities and different organisers, there needs to be different authorisations. Again I say to you, if I am wrong, why would Democracy Village and Make Wars History need seperate authorisations?

Yep, brilliant, and you totally ignored the wonderful work carried out by the emegency services last night, and today. Do you know why? I’ll tell you, but you won’t like it! It’s because, thankfully, we have a police service, a fire service, and an ambulance service, who do what they do, because they believe in what they do! They are also loved and respected by the majority, who understand what a great contribution they make to society!

I do apologise if my desire to express my absolute respect and admiration for the work carried out by all the emergency services at last nights incident, has offended in you in some way. i would, respectfully, suggest that is much more of a problem for you, than for me!

Jock to clarify the only thing I take offence to is you taking pot shots at everyone on this website who holds a different view to you.
Your point about the emergency services really bears no relevance to the discussion here. Its just another of your attempts to sabotage other peoples contibutions.
I am sure most people are grateful for the work of the emergency services. They are allowed to have other opinions too.
Again I ask you, why are you attacking peoples comments on here?
And also, I’d love to hear what you think about the privatisation of our emergency services.
How about some intelligent debate please?

good post. if jock is so proud of our services I wonder if he believes they receive. fair pay and fair pensions for their hard work and dedication. I have read all the posts so far and jock makes no sense whatsoever.

Thankfully Posing Pouch, we also have emergency services that have not (yet) been privatised in the pursuit of profit.

I’ve got a nasty feeling that your vision of the future might include an automated callcentre that has a digitally-generated voice saying “Please have your credit card details available before you require the emergency services”.

A thousand thanks, girls and guys! Your refusual to engage with me, has shown the rest of the world that your are a far left organisation, that seeks to impose some kind of a communist type system on us all. That’s great, because the real 99 percent will never accept that. Y’all have a nice day,

Jock Strap, you have said in one of your comments that you are happy to explain why you dislike this movement, but you haven’t because of the abusive response you have received. Surely that doesn’t have to stop you? It is an open forum, you can post your reasons without being invited. However, I am inviting you to do that right now. When you do, I will be happy to reflect on your comments, and give a considered, and respectful, reply to your reasons. That means we are in debate. I shall endeavor to be respectful to you, and your opinions, and I ask only that you agree to debate in a respectful manner too. So, do you want to debate? If you do, please post your reply under my response to the post where you said that you would like the opportunity to explain why you dislike this movement. Thank you.

Howard, you are the first person that has actually offered to engage with me. I welcome that and appreciate it. I’ve never sought anything other than respect in debate, but it has not always been forthcoming.

Okay. Shall we keep the discussion going on this comment. (even though we have reached the end of the nesting!) I won’t be on line tomorrow – I work on computers all week, and have a family rule of no computers on on Sundays. When you’re ready to leave a post, post it here, I’ll check out next week asap, and we’ll see where it goes!

i got the chance to do jury service a couple of years ago.i had to place my hand on the bible and swear on the bible to be truthful.Then i had to “judge” whether or not the accused was guilty or not.it says in the bible i placed my hand upon,thou shall not “judge” there are contraditions in law itself

@s.wright ~ from my experience of attending court there is an option to swear, that is not by placing your hand on the bible.

Anyway, as a juror, as far as I’m aware, you are not called to judge whether someone is worthy of pardon or not, but merely whether they are guilty of doing what was charged. Please for give me if I’ve got this wrong.

Regarding what the bible says about judgement, from my current understanding, what is being conveyed is that condemning someone’s actions as being beyond pardon is the problem in judging. When we condemn someone like this we are not reflecting the truth about God’s love in the situation ~ which is that every single wrong ever committed or ever will be, is forgiven and pardoned by him.

1.OccpuyLSX made a mistake in not applying for permission for its march, which it had advertised widely, but chooses to blame the police for its mistake. This is classic OccupyLSX logic, claiming all of the rights but wanting none of the responsibility.

2. Permission is needed for these types of events as the police have a responsibility to facilitate legal protest. They therefore have to plan to minimise disruption to everyone else, make sure the march is safe, plan policing numbers, warn the public about disturbances to transport or noice disturbances, plan for potential disorder and criminality (which often happens when these types of marches are infiltrated) and other things such as making sure other emergency services are on standby. Seven days notice is required and this is all perfectly reasonable, designed to facilitate protest and not some sort of fascist plot to deny protest,

3. On the “this other group could protest so so can we” issue, Dave has done a very good job of explaining this but I will summarise for completeness. It is not discrimination as some have posted to allow one group to march and another to not. All 3 groups could have applied for permission but only two chose to. I have no idea why OLX didn’t apply but it is their fault. As per point 2, the police need details of a march (route etc) and will need to make assessments as I highlighted above about safety, criminality, disruption and so its not simply about numbers. Faced with a group that was not playing by the rules the police response seems to have been reasonable.

4. “Our march was escorted by police, who led those assembled not in the direction of Trafalgar Square, but towards Whitehall. Given that police were onsite at St Paul’s on Saturday morning to warn us that any attempt to march in the direction of Whitehall (which was not our intention in any case) would be blocked, this is rather puzzling.”

Now I may be wrong on this as I wasn’t there but this statement is quite confusing. Whitehall is beyond Traf Square if coming from St Paul’s. How were you lead towards Whitehall whilst not being lead in the direction of traf square?

5. Come on, just admit you made a mistake and learn from it or you will never be taken seriously

Sorry, I missed your complaint about being forced to do jury duty. Yes, I understand this complaint but think that trial by jury is very important for justice and the system would not get enough volunteers if people weren’t ‘forced’ to do it. It’s one of the tiny ways we all have to contribute to society.

and why would you seem to think you would not get enough volunteers……? because enough people see through the corrupt system no doubt. why do courts offer bibles out to get people to put hands on to judge when it says in the bible do not judge as for a declaration off signing to tell the truth that is irrelevant i would like truth from the 1% who don`t obey by their own rules,practice what you preach

@s.wright ~ from my experience of attending court there is an option to swear, that is not by placing your hand on the bible.

Anyway, as a juror, as far as I’m aware, you are not called to judge whether someone is worthy of pardon or not, but merely whether they are guilty of doing what was charged. Please for give me if I’ve got this wrong.

Regarding what the bible says about judgement, from my current understanding, what is being conveyed is that condemning someone’s actions as being beyond pardon is the problem in judging. When we condemn someone like this we are not reflecting the truth about God’s love in the situation ~ which is that every single wrong ever committed or ever will be, is forgiven and pardoned by him.

I’ve been reflecting further on this, and not being over-familiar with the judicial system I have to admit I am quite niaive about it. But anyway, as I was reflecting it came to mind that the judge is bound within certain parameters regarding the sentence he gives (for example if the charge were murder then setting the accused free is probably not an option) ~ and so @s.wright, I can see your point about being forced to be part of the sentencing process by being on a jury.

The whole problem relating to how the judicial system is run though exists in the first place because society, by and large, wants vengeance.

Whilst society is calling for vengeance against offenders then a judicial system is necessary ~ otherwise we would have vigilanties stepping into the breach and I’d hate to think where that could lead.

When society is able to deal with its disputes according to God’s mercy then we will no longer need a judicial system. We are a long way off from that yet though.

So, in the meantime, we do need something. As for making it a fairer system, I don’t have any thoughts as yet. It is good that the issues are being raised though.

look at my previous post please.
all i can see is its one rule for them and another for us.
its not right.i have obeyed laws for my entire life obviously thats why i was let on a jury.but the system is corrupt.they force things upon you which is not good.

I think that to protest about the unfairness of the rules is one thing, but to break them is quite another. I think that if you resort to breaking the rules then you risk losing the support of many potential supporters.

I also think that owning up to having made a mistake, if it is proven that you have done so, would be a good step to take. Society respects humility, transparency and honesty.

The tide will change as the Occupy movement gains increasing support from society through its humility, transparency and honesty. The Occupy London movement has that potential power in their own hands here. It would be wise to use it.

dave i only asked 2 questions.why do we need to obey the law?thanks you answered that one for me but you didnt answer my 2nd question on why you feel you wouldnt get enough volunteers for jury duty instead of being forced to do it? so my 2 questions were not thoroughly answered.i have a second post coming soon.i am currently cooking dinner.

In response to your second question. If jury service were optional I suspect that many would still do it out of a sense of duty but many would not do it as they have busy lives and would see it as a distraction. I may be wrong on that and I hope that I am but it’s what I think. As you say, some may also not do it as they think the system is corrupt but I expect these would be in the minority.

Enjoy your dinner and I await your post. I hope you will answer some of the points I made on the events of last night

yes people are busy(i was too busy for jury service but still was forced to do it)and i hated having to judge.as in one of your previous posts “as a juror as far as im aware you are not called to whether someone is worthy of pardon or not,but “merely whether they are guilty of what was charged.
should of read guilty or not.
as a ex juror.me and my fellow jurors had given a vote on whether the accused was guilty or not.i will not forget the face of the man that looked us in the eyes when he got sent down.i am still cooking got 3 around 4 dinner.so it might be awhile before i post again

But in response to your point, yes, you are required to judge whether you think the person is guilty or not of what they are being charged ~ as in “Did they do it or not?”

This is not the same thing as condemning someone. You can say that someone is guilty of an offence without condemning them. The fact that that man’s face was so downcast is likely to have been because he felt condemnation.

Hi all, I am a friend of s.wrights who has come for dinner and been reading some of the comments left. I think that there has been some kind of confusion here. To pronounce a guilty charge on some-one IS condemning them as your verdict deems thier sentence.

hi all.im a friend of s.wrights who has come for dinner and has been reading some of the comments left.i think there has been some kind of confusion here.to pronounce a guilty charge on someone IS condemning them as your verdict deems their sentence.

Surely it is the judge who deems the sentence, not the jury. Whichever way, I do agree that the system as it stands can put one in an awkward position. In being forced to become part of the system, we are potentially involved in handing someone over to a judge, who may or may not agree with our own sense of justice. The judge may be merciful or they may be harsh ~ this is the flaw in the judicial system as it stands.

The problem is further exaserbated by the fact that some of the public want mercy to be shown to “offenders”, whereas others are calling for harsher measures in dealing with “offenders”.

As an aside though, let me give an example to help explain what I was getting at earlier regarding guilt.

If you were to hit me, then it is a fact that you hit me ~ you are “guilty” of hitting me. If someone were to ask me if you hit me then I would be honest in saying “Yes”. If they were to ask me if you were “guilty” of hitting me, then I would also be honest in saying “Yes”.

In all of this this I have done nothing personally to condemn you ~ all I have done is to give an honest answer to the question.

Its what happens next that is the critical issue.

Whether that information is now used to condemn you or not.

I could say that even though you hit me I forgive you and don’t want you to suffer punishment for it. In doing this I lift any sense of shame you may have off you so you are free.

Or I could say you’re an evil person and I hope you rot in hell ~ in which case I want you to suffer great pain for what you’ve done. In this instance I’ve compounded any sense of shame you may already have and make you a prisoner of shame.

Now, some advice that Jesus gave was to settle our disputes before it reaches court in order to avoid the issue of handing someone over to someone else’s sense of justice.

I admit that this doesn’t answer the problem raised of being forced to take part in jury service ~ but just my penny’s worth, for what its worth.

thankyou occupy the world for elaborating.
i do think that the jury has some sought of influence on the judges decision though thus making us part of the whole judging process otherwise what is a jury needed for yes.i very much did not want to be part of the jury.personally i think it should be up to the individual who the crime is commited against to make that decision.

I am sorry that you are feeling that you have been mistreated by some people on here. I’m sorry that you have not been treated in the way that you would like to be treated by some.

The world as it is is a long way away from everyone being treated in the way in which we would like to be treated. None of us is perfect yet and so we treat others badly and hurt each other because of this.

This movement has sprung up in recognition that this is wrong. It is standing up and stating that the world, as it is, is wrong. People are not being treated how they deserve to be treated. I think that we may all find we share common ground on this point. 🙂

But the movement itself is made up of people who are themselves not yet perfect. I don’t think anyone would deny this.

This movement is making the statement that we don’t want to carry on like this. Again, I think this is something on which we can all agree 🙂

It is not claiming to have the answers ~ but it IS committed to pressing for change for the better. For THIS I have much respect and gratitude.

As I have said, we are a long way away from everyone being treated how they would like to be treated ~ so…

~ in the meantime, will you please forgive those who have offended you and carry on forgiving us until we ALL treat you, and everyone else, as you would like to be treated.

I have learnt that it is helpful to me to treat others in the way that I would like to be treated. 🙂

It also helps a little in making the world a better place. Its a small step forward in creating the society we want to see. We all have this power ~ no-one can take this power away from us!

I had intended to not post on here any more, but your message to me was respectful, and deserving of a response. So, I would just like to set out my concerns about the ‘occupy’ movement.

First of all, and I’ve posted this a few time, it is totally wrong of you, whoever you are, to claim to be ‘representing the 100%’, simply beacuse the organisation does not represent all of the 100%, or even 99%.

My next concern, I don’t believe that anyone thinks the current system is ‘perfect’. I certainly don’t. However, it has proved to be a lot better than some systems that have been tried in other parts of the world. I have no doubt that the people who started this movement, are good, genuine, well meaning and peace loving people. However, critcism is easy, bringing about the downfall of the system, though not easy, is achievable. The big problem, is what to put in it’s place. In fact, this is crucial, it would be much easier to introduce an inferior system, with catastrophic consequences, than to come up with a system that is fair to all. What really scares me, is that we could end up in a very much worse place that the one we’re in at present.

There is, obviously, some serious hostilty here towards the so called 1%. Another poster, earlier this afternoon on another thread, has made some very good, valid points regarding the consequences of the 1% turning the backs on this country. It could potentially be disastrous, so here’s a suggestion (I bet I get slagged off for this!), how about you attempt to engage with the 1%, instead of treating them as the enemy?? Yes, I know that is outrageous, but if you nominated 4 or 5 of your number, they need to be smart, confident and articulate, and request a meeting with same numebr of representatives from the 1%, you’re in a no loose situation. If the refuse, they show the world what they really are. If they accept, who knows, maybe some genuine progress can be made, without conflict, towards a better future.

Just a thought, maybe that the 1% are not as bad as they are being made out to be, and maybe, we could all co-exist in peace and mutual prosperity.

I agree that the potential of this can look pretty scary. I think its wise to bear in mind though that this is in its very early stages.

I must admit that I was dismissive of it to start with, but I have warmed to it as its been unfolding. There are still many issues which cause me to be concerned, but I am trusting that God will have His way through it, which will overcome the weaknesses of man’s wisdom.

I agree that we are in this as 100% ~ that its not the 99% against the 1%. It is a mindset that is our enemy ~ not people. If this gets lost then I do fear for the repercussions

Loving/representing the 100%, stop confusing this old fart by changing your name!!

Seriously though, and with respect, I do not believe in God, In my mind, he/she is a creation of man/womankind as an excuse for all that goes wrong in the world. However, I do not presume to know the answers, so I equally respect those who think otherwise. If that offends anyone, sorry.

At the same time, sadly, I realise that there is a very unpleasant minority in society, who only seek confrontation and violence, who will, without doubt, take over this organisation, and perpertuate violent acts in your name. Whilst I’m not a fan of your organisation, I do not wish to see it ruined by violent anarchists.

Jock Strap, despite saying you would you don’t seem to have replied to Howard’s request for you to explain what you dislike about the Occupy Movement.
Are you ready to stop throwing insults and engage in some intelligent debate instead? We’re waiting…

Jock Strap wrote:Just a thought, maybe that the 1% are not as bad as they are being made out to be, and maybe, we could all co-exist in peace and mutual prosperity.

Well. Here’s a few answers as to why not:
Shell gunned down protesters in cold blood in Nigeria http://wiwavshell.org/the-case-against-shell/
The US military has imprisoned Bradley Manning for more than 18 months under inhuman conditions, without any trial.
Companies in the USA poisoned a huge aquifer by “fracking”, to the extent that people can light their tap water on fire, and then denied any responsibility (“you can’t prove it was us!”)
Goldman Sachs has created a “bubble” in the price of food, driving up global wheat and rice prices threefold and pushing millions over the starvation threshold, simply to make short-term profit http://johannhari.com/2010/07/02/how-goldman-sachs-gambling-on-starving-the-worlds-poor-and-won/

This is the tip of the tip of the tip of the tip of the ice berg. How are these people “not as bad as they’re made out to be”? How?? If you’re not going to stand up against these people, how can you pretend that you have any moral sense whatsoever?

Jock Strap wrote:At the same time, sadly, I realise that there is a very unpleasant minority in society, who only seek confrontation and violence, who will, without doubt, take over this organisation, and perpertuate (sic) violent acts in your name.

Riiiight…. Because this “unpleasant minority” would obviously be part of a non-violent resistance movement, in your view. And yet the people responsible for the above atrocities are misunderstood and well-meaning, and everybody should “engage” with them.
Bleah. This is word salad. It’s so illogical and self-contradictory that if you hadn’t already destroyed all of your own credibility on this board, this would surely do it.

Penneth’s worth here…
I have read a lot of comments on this site and it is intriguing to finally see the human side of dear old Jock.
Jock, in case you are interested, the impression you give on most of the threads I have read your comments on is of wading in rudely casting aspersions and insulting stereotypes about that completely cloud any efforts you may actually be making to genuinely engage with people. I now at last get the impression quite clearly here that you have concern and even fear about this movement in that it could lead to the dismantling of the current system that you feel secure with, even though you see its imperfections. This is an incredibly valid and insightful point, that is that a large proportion of the older more conservative leaning proportion of (if you will excuse the contentious expression 😉 the 99% must feel this way. It is something that this movement will need to engage with if it is really to grow substantially, and it may not be easy to get beyond the attitude that people like Mr Strap quite naturally in their mainstream media world view maintain.
Jock, it is really good to hear your suggestions and I would like to suggest that at this stage it may be a first step for you and 4 or 5 of your friends to set up a meeting with 4 or 5 members of the OLSX movement to find out that neither of you are the “enemy” of the other and that both parties have a lot to gain in understanding each other better.
So how about it?
Anyway, just my thoughts, I am not part of OLSX, just another of the percentages floating about somewhere between 1 and 99…